PREFACE
The feudal means of production in Eastern societies is a matter that has been unjustly neglected by bourgeois historiography, which regarded feudalism as something to be found only in countries that had arisen from the ruins of the Roman Empire; that is, only in Western Europe. A subject of long and detailed study, the institutions of Western feudalism, in this way, achieved the privilege of being regarded as "classical" feudal institutions. This situation, as far as the study of socioeconomic institutions in the Middle Ages was concerned, was the factor that compelled even the classical Marxist writers to analyze their principles of the feudal means of production namely through their observations regarding the breakdown of the Germanic clan-based society and the development of feudalism in Western Europe. In spite of this, and in spite of the fact that specialized scientific research had not uncovered the framework of feudal institutions in Southeastern Europe, Asia Minor, Central Asia, and the Far East, Marx indicated the existence of important distinctions between Western and Eastern feudal institutions and the existence of an "Eastern Feudalism."
Bourgeois historiography showed an interest in the history of the Asian peoples insofar as it affected the interests of the nations of Western Europe. It was for this reason, quite naturally, that the question of feudalism in Eastern societies has only been investigated scientifically by contemporary Marxist historiographers. The many works on feudalism in Central Asia, east of the Caucasus, Asia Minor, and the Arab countries that have been published in recent decades already make it possible to distinguish certain basic tendencies in the development of Eastern feudalism, and to explain the Eastern feudal institutions. These studies give rise to a number of questions, both theoretical and factual.
Primarily, the study of Eastern feudalism proves yet again the existence of certain general principles underlying feudal society. Here, as in the West, it is characterized by certain "industrial relationships," which are the result of the incomplete ownership of the means of production by the immediate producer and of the extraction of the surplus product by means of noneconomic pressures. Briefly, the study of feudalism in Eastern societies has shown that all peoples have passed through this socioeconomic formation, and that Western European societies hold no monopoly of it.
The study of feudalism in the Eastern nations, however, has revealed a number of purely individual features that do not coincide with the predetermined ideas about feudal institutions, as portrayed by bourgeois historians. These features, in fact, are the result of the most important distinguishing mark of Eastern feudalism, which was mentioned by Marx: namely, the possession by the state of the means of production the land. In a significant part of contemporary Marxist literature, and more particularly in the literature concerning Ottoman feudalism, it is already customary to speak of the "peculiarities" and "specifics" of this feudalism. Such a description of the characteristics of Eastern feudalism in practice means its subordination to Western European feudalism. In the final analysis, why should the features of feudalism in France not be considered just as "specific" as far as Eastern feudalism is concerned? And why are the features of Eastern feudalism, which appeared in history earlier than Western feudalism, covered a far wider area, and lasted far longer, always evaluated in comparison with Western feudalism? If this had been justified at a time when Eastern feudal institutions had been studied insufficiently for the general laws governing feudalism to be observed, at the present stage of research it is quite unnecessary to give Western feudal institutions priority over Eastern ones. And if, in accordance with the general laws, each feudal society has created its own feudal institutions, each one should be defined by its features, and not by its "peculiarities."
The main feature of Eastern, and more particularly Ottoman, feudalism is the presence of a strong centralized power. As far as agrarian relations are concerned, this feature is expressed in the power to extract revenue from the land. It can be boldly stated that the salient characteristics of Ottoman feudalism arise from this principle. This fact has its own explanation. The Eastern feudal societies had been exposed to the invasions of nomadic tribes and were forced to engage in a constant struggle for existence. The role of these invasions was a dual one. On the one hand, it showed yet again the importance of a strong centralized power and, on the other, insofar as these tribes succeeded in penetrating the already formed Eastern feudal states, it had a "rejuvenating" effect on them and imposed upon them certain early feudal institutions.
Apart from this, the study of feudalism in Asia Minor and Central Asia brings to the fore yet another of its characteristics: the almost ubiquitous presence of two basic forms of feudal land ownership official (usually military) and unofficial. In other words, there was conditional and unconditional feudal land ownership. Although the periodization of feudalism in many Asian societies has not yet been finally determined, we cannot but observe that conditional feudal landownership is usually strengthened by the arrival of new, semi nomadic masses, and that it inevitably accompanies the establishment of the power of new conquerors while, at the same time, the relative share of unconditional landownership is considerably reduced. With the further development of feudalism in the same societies, unofficial land ownership (which expands at the expense of official-usually military-land ownership, and aims to make it subordinate) becomes ever more significant. In the certain sense, a similar phenomenon in Western European feudalism is the transition from benefice to feod. This was an isolated phenomenon, just as the barbarian invasion of Western Europe was an isolated event.
One of the main questions that comes up in the study of Ottoman feudal institutions is that of the role of local tradition. Ottoman feudalism, which is fully representative of Eastern feudalism, was established on territories where highly developed feudal relationships already reigned supreme. However inadequately the history of the Kayl tribe at the time when it played a part in the frontier system of the Seldjuk state and the first century of the by-then Ottoman state formation-may have been studied, it must be noted that the conquerors of Asia Minor and the Balkans were at a much lower level of socioeconomic development. The institutions created by the new state were formed naturally under the influence of local feudal institutions; but the role of that influence should not be overestimated. The forms of Ottoman feudalism were, above all, the result of the development of Ottoman society itself. In the final analysis, all feudal institutions have a good deal in common. This is because they are feudal. For this reason, Ottoman feudalism should not be viewed as a mere mechanical continuation of the development of feudalism in the Seldjuk state, Byzantium, or the Balkan states. In this situation, it is particularly unwise to construct theses regarding transition in feudal institutions proceeding from terminological and formal analogies in general. In this respect, the content of a given institution should be kept in mind.
On the other hand, however, Ottoman feudalism cannot be viewed separately from the general development of socioeconomic relations in Asia Minor and Southeastern Europe. The very fact that the Ottomans took possession of the forces of production in these lands does not now permit us to draw a definite boundary between the development of Ottoman society and the societies it conquered. In these circumstances, which should always be borne in mind, Ottoman society was built to the detriment of human resources, which were drawn from the local populations in the process of their consistent and continuing muslimization. The possession of the forces of production is, in fact, what should be understood by the phrase "conquest of the local population."The feudal institutions of Ottoman society, however, cannot be said to be adopted or imported. If the reverse were true, it would be difficult to explain why, in the conquered territories, where mature feudal relations with some initial signs of breakdown had existed, feudalism continued to thrive for centuries.
Agrarian relations in the Ottoman empire are a matter that has been the subject of considerable study. A few decidedly outdated studies by nineteenth-century European bourgeois historians (Hammer, Belin, Tischendorf) were devoted to the history of the Turkish state, and to its agrarian institutions, but many years passed before any further work was done.
The second state in the study of Ottoman agrarian institutions took place in the 1930s and 1940s, during which mainly Turkish bourgeois historiographers (Koprulu, Barkan, Uzuncarsili and others) published a number of works dedicated to or touching upon certain aspects of agrarian relations in the empire.
The third stage in the study of this matter began after World War II. At this stage, we can point to several research centers at which Ottoman feudalism in general and agrarian relations in the empire to a limited extent-were studied. There is already quite a sizeable group of scholars, mainly in the Soviet Union, (Miller, Novichev, Tveritinova, Dostyan, Djikiya, Ibragimov, and others) who have published many studies on the socioeconomic development of the Ottoman state. There are also many Yugoslav historians who have studied Turkish feudalism (Hadzibegic, Dzurdzev, Filipovic, Kresevljakovic, Sokolovski, Sopova-Bozanic, Stoyanovski, Kaleski, Mehmedovski, and others). After World War II Sofia also became a center of active research into Ottoman history.
The many special research projects already carried out, which either discuss or mention the matter of agrarian relations in the empire are undoubtedly on a different level as far as scholarship is concerned. The work carried out by the pioneers in this field in the nineteenth century is indeed far even from the standard required by modern bourgeois methodology. The characteristic feature of their studies is an uncritical attitude toward their sources, a formal juridical approach, and the complete absence of historicism. In spite of this, the works of Hammer, Belin, and Tischendorf are still widely read because no new studies of many Ottoman agrarian institutions have been carried out. For example, as far as the timar is concerned, with the exception of J. Deny's article in the Encyclopeadia of Islam (which, methodologically speaking, is not much more contemporary, and which rests almost entirely on the studies already mentioned), there is no subsequent special research available other than that carried out by Tischendorf (1872).
Turkish bourgeois historians who should have carried out the most work as far as research into Ottoman feudal institutions is concerned, fall short of our expectations. As far as methodology is concerned, many of them lag far behind the contemporary bourgeois historians, and have produced works that are, from every viewpoint, rudimentary (Uzuncarsili, Karamursal, Inan), which have completely ignored the actual Ottoman source material (Koprulu), and some have put forward unfounded and controversial theses (Akdag), The research cried out by that productive scholar of Turkey's economic history, O. L. Barkan, is worthy of special attention. He is, above all, a contemporary Turkish bourgeois historian who makes use of the most significant original Ottoman material, much of which he includes in their entirety in his studies. In this way, Barkan puts into general circulation materials that were previously not accessible to non-Turkish historians. However, the theoretical interpretation of these sources is not always on a scientific level. Barkan's ideas regarding the very same questions frequently contradict one another, are entirely tendentious, and are of a reactionary, idealistic nature. However, his many works are an undoubted step forward in Turkish historiography, as they are devoted to the actual socioeconomic problems of Ottoman history.
There are only two important Turkish historians whose work is completely up to the standards required by contemporary bourgeois historiography- H. Inalcik and M. T. Gokbilgin. In their works, we find a typically bourgeois objectivism (of which, in fact, Turkish scholars can rarely be found guilty), together with a critical and precise interpretation of the sources. The many sources mentioned in Inalcikand Gokbilgin's works are of exceptional importance to the study of agrarian relationtions in the Ottoman empire.
Typically, if we exclude contemporary Turkish historiography, it is almost exclusively the historians of the Soviet Union and the Balkan countries who are, at present, engaged in the study of Ottoman feudal institutions. The particular interest shown in the history of Turkey by nineteenth-century Western European historians, which was dictated by the political aspirations of Britain, France, and Germany in Eastern Europe and the Near East, has waned completely. The new inpulse in these studies came from the Marxist historians.
Soviet scholars of socioeconomic relationships in the Ottoman empire concentrate mainly on the resistance by the mass of the people to Turkish feudalism (Tveritinova, Novichev, Dostyan, lbragimov). Valuable hypotheses regarding the position of the dependant popula¬tion are contained in many of their works, in spite of the limited source material on which they are based, and that in certain cases, lead them to biased conclusions. In the final analysis, the contributions of Soviet scholarship to the study of Ottoman feudal reality determine the course of further studies in this field.
Yugoslav historiography, represented mainly by the Sarajevo and Skopje Ottomanists, is known mainly for its valuable publications of new Turkish sources, and for its factual contribu¬tions. However, the generalized studies of some Yugoslav historians are still rather empirical (Sokolovski, Avdo) or are full of unsupported and not always methodologically sound theses (Dzurdzev, Filipovic).
In Bulgaria, the study of agrarian relations in the Ottoman Empire has only been put on a true scientific basis fairly recently-during the past fifteen years. In spite of this, a great deal of work has been carried out in this field, notably by such eminent historians as D. Kossev, A. Bourmov, H. Hristov, H. Gandev and J. Natan, who, although they do not make direct use of Ottoman material, offer valuable hypothetheses or have carried out separate investigations on the subject of Ottoman agrarian institutions, mainly during the later period of Ottoman rule. Apart from this, the small group of Ottoman historians from the Institute of History has already produced over thirty special studies in this field, based either on little-known or already well-known Ottoman sources. The undoubted advantage-namely the existence of copious archive material-possessed by Bulgarian Ottomanists has provided favorable conditions for the development of Turkish historical studies in this country.
No matter how recently it has been put on a proper scientific footing, the question of agrarian relations in the Ottoman empire, with particular reference to this country when it was under Turkish rule has been considerably researched in many of its aspects. When it comes to an all around study of the matter, however, there are a number of circumstances that should be taken into account.
It would be difficult to explain agrarian relations in any feudal society in isolation, as they are but a part of the complex socioeconomic and political reality of that society. In other words, the matter being examined cannot be isolated from the general historical background of Ottoman life at that time. For this reason, the first obstacle to be encountered is the fact that the history of the Ottoman state as a whole has not yet been studied from the Marxist point of view. Any relevant studies in this sphere are completely out of date.
The second difficulty that confronts the scholar of agrarian relations in the empire is the huge volume of original material concerning the latter. Also, when we exclude the actual Turkish historians, the bulk of this material is inaccessible to scholars from other countries. Access is only possible through the publications of Turkish historiographers, which are themselves not particularly copious. In all cases, it should be borne in mind that the publication of this inaccessible but existing source material, when it becomes more generally known, will neccessitate a reexamination of many firm conclusions based on the incomplete data now available to scholars.
The third obstacle encountered in the investigation of agrarian relationships is the circumstance that, in spite of the many studies that have recently been devoted to this subject, at the present stage, a biased view of the matter has been given. The question of the position of the direct producer (land ownership, feudal rent, the categories of dependent population) is considered to be central. As far as the institutions of feudal land ownership are concerned, the most-studied are the later ones, (farms, for example, researched by H. Gandev, H. Hristov, and S. Dimitrov in Bulgaria). Very little attention has so far been paid to the early Ottoman feudal agrarian categories. The timar, in its initial and early stages of development, has not been studied at all. The question of early unoffical land ownership, etc. has not been examined either.
Such a state of affairs has also determined the character of this book. The most obvious point is that in one of its main areas, feudal land ownership, that is (represented on the one hand by the timar, and, on the other, by the mulk and the vakif), the author has been able to rely to some extent on studies previously carried out. Consequently, that part of the book, too, is of an analytical nature. This particularly applies to the study of the mulk and the vakif, which have not been examined in Marxist literature.
As far as rural land ownership and feudal rents are concerned, the author partially relies on established theories that are the result of research carried out by Soviet and Bulgarian historians and on her own research. Consequently, this section of the book is distinguished from the others by the fact that it does not dwell in detail upon the presentation of certain matters that have been explored in the author's earlier works.
It should be noted that no examination has been made of the question of landownership in the sultan's has (Translator's note: has-a fief of an annual value of over 10,000 akcev. This omission is due entirely to the lack of accessible material in this field dealing with the fif¬teenth and sixteenth centuries. However ample the information may be concerning his land ownership during the later period, it is con¬sidered that it would be erroneous to apply it to the earlier period.
Furthermore, in the territories owned by the sultan, the forms of land ownership and exploitation were unequivocal, and not subject to general juridical requirements. This can be seen from the regime in the has lands from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. For this reason, the study of landownership in crown territories has had to be postponed until actual source material is found.
Another feature of this book, which is dictated by the existing state of affairs, is the study of the history of certain agrarian institutions. Because, in the majority of the existing studies, the peculiarities of these institutions as a whole have been shown, it is necessary to trace their origins, gradual establishment, and finally their imposition in order to demonstrate the changes in their characteristics. Naturally, such a presentation of the matter also requires a brief study of certain socioeconomic and political tendencies in the life of the empire, which have dictated the formation of the institutions in question, or upon which they were based.
Finally, it should be stressed that, at the present stage of research, the question of agrarian relationships in the Ottoman Empire cannot be considered to have been studied exhaustively. This book confines itself to the study of separate institutions of these relations, which have been studied on the basis of an ample, but not exhaustive, source material. This material also defines the geographical borders covered by this study, that is, almost the whole of the Ottoman administrative, military, and territorial units of Rumelia and Anatolia, with priority being given to information regarding the European territories of the empire. As it was in those provinces that the agrarian regime was typical of the Ottoman feudal system, it is considered that the fact that land institutions in other parts of the empire have not been studied in no way significantly affects the conclusions arrived at in this study.
Chapter 1
The TimarThe principal form of feudal land ownership in the Ottoman Empire in the period under review, the form in which we find elements of the tradition of certain Moslem feudal formations, and of the conquered non-Turkish states, but which, at the same time, is typically Ottoman in the form in which it was dominant in the empire during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries is undoubedly the timar.
It was the principal form of landownership, not so much because of the fact that its relative share in the agrarian system was the largest (this statement, according to some data, is open to dispute), but because, within the framework of the centuries in question, it was an institution imposed by the new state. At that time, the still immature feudal class in the ranks of the conquerors, and the existence of a strong central power did not allow the newcomers to wholly adopt the feudal institutions of those who were already settled in Asia Minor or the Balkan states. In one way or another, these institutions were the fruit of the stable and mature development of the feudal relations that had reached, in the Turkish principalities of Asia Minor, a stage of development far beyond that of the Ottomans. It was for this reason that, during the first decades of their expansion, during which the Ottomans retained some form of land ownership already established in the Turkish principalities, and even strengthened them (i.e., the mulk, the valkif, and the malikane-divani estates, of which I shall have more to say at a later stage), the first agrarian feudal institutions imposed and codified by the new empire was the timar. The extremely arbitrary, limited character of this land ownership, its close dependence on the state. and the timar-holder's obligations to the sultan are features that betrayed the more primitive stage of development of the new society in comparison with those already established on its territories. They bore witness to the lack of a firmly based and ...
